Well, this was a surprise. No, not that swastika. That's from last week. But, this...of all the things that New York excels at - Culture, art, finance, #1 in taxes (39% above national average), #1 in job stagnation, and #1 in least happy people, I did not expect that New York would be #3 with most number of hate groups. Only California and Florida out-hate New York (by a wide margin I might add.) Well, at least we outrank New Jersey.
Southern Poverty Law Center "Hate Map"
Though I should have guess it was true. When I move to NYC 25 years ago, I was confronted with the overwhelming amount of bigotry that pervaded (and still pervades) the city. Shocking really for someone coming from below the Mason-Dixon line. I just chalked it up to so many different people from all over the world to hate bringing their old world charm and homespun blood feuds with them. Oh, yeah and then there's that swastika at my subway station...
Discuss...anything.
Southern Poverty Law Center "Hate Map"
Though I should have guess it was true. When I move to NYC 25 years ago, I was confronted with the overwhelming amount of bigotry that pervaded (and still pervades) the city. Shocking really for someone coming from below the Mason-Dixon line. I just chalked it up to so many different people from all over the world to hate bringing their old world charm and homespun blood feuds with them. Oh, yeah and then there's that swastika at my subway station...
Discuss...anything.
25 comments:
The rather vigorous debate about the Indiana religious freedom law signals that social issues will loom large in 2016.
Hillary normally stays silent on anything remotely controversial, but (perhaps motivated by a desire to change the subject) she has joined the many high profile people and companies denouncing the law as discriminatory.
Anthony - Gov. Pence is shocked that anyone would have a problem considering that there are at least 20 other states who have this same law including Illinois...guess who voted for that one? 3 tries and the first two don't count. It is also a little disingenuous for Hillary to be commenting because it was her husband (ooooh, sexist me) who signed the federal law in the 1990's with overwhelming bi-partisan support.
These laws are to protect against endless lawsuits and not to give people free reign to discriminate. The MSM and the Hollywood idiots and the LGBTQ lobby needs the attention. And they all need to make sure that they can use the misinformation to make sure that everyone they hate looks more hateful.
One of the state governors who has banned his state workers from entering Indiana has his OWN RF laws on the books.
Oh, and I think that Hillary is pretty much toast now that it has been revealed that she may have destroyed evidence after the fact subject to a Congressional subpoena Oops, not even Nixon thought to destroy the tapes entirely.
Bev, I would have two responses...
1. This law is different. In fact, conservatives have been bragging about it being different. The difference is that no one has been able to use the other laws to do what conservatives want to do, which is to let people discriminate against gays. Every time someone has tried to point to those other laws as a defense, the courts have rejected it. So this time, they specifically put it in the law that people can use the law as a defense to a civil suit.
2. I do find the "why are they so upset" talk to be highly disingenuous. If California now passes a law which says that you can discriminate against Christians or conservatives, you can bet that talk radio and church groups everywhere would be raising just as big of a stink.
On Hillary, I agree. It strikes me that even she knows she's finished. She seems very disconnected from everything suddenly.
Hillary et al. are going to have to push much harder if they want the Indiana law to be an issue. I've been pretty checked out of politics aside from this site for awhile, and I can tell you, the Indiana story isn't trickling down.
Plus, we just exited the first quarter of 2015. This'll be dead and buried before the Iowa caucuses.
tryanmax, That's a good point too. The political news is full of talk of the Indiana law, but I don't see hardly a mention anywhere else. So I don't see this having any traction with the public.
Besides, I suspect the Indiana law will be long gone by the time Iowa rolls around. Indiana is losing far too much revenue right now. This is a very familiar script.
FYI, Pence and the Republicans are now planning to change the law to make it clear that it can't be used to discriminate against gays. I'll be curious to see how that plays out.
Changes large enough and small enough for both sides to claim some sort of victory?
From what I understand, that change should be as simple as identifying gays and transformers as protected classes. But what's ever simple?
P.S. I spent a little time Googling the Indiana thing, reading little bits of articles and opinion pieces. I think I detect a slight tip-of-the-hand on the part of those opposed. In almost every article, there is tossed in a quote or a line about abortion, then it quickly shifts focus back to bigoted florists and bakers. I know the pro-choice community is greatly irked that pro-lifers managed to Trojan horse their agenda through medical facilities standards*. I think this could be a similar ploy in the other direction.
(*Which, incidentally, I approve of. I wouldn't get a tooth filled in some of the places abortion providers refer to as "clinics.")
re Hillary, on Meet the Press, an NBC show, a member of the Center for American Progress tried to mount a (rather pathetic) defense of Hillary Clinton. The result was laughter around the table.
The clip is 2min 47sec
LINK
Tryanmax,
I'm not saying the Indiana law is going to be an issue in 2016, but I think social issues will loom large in 2016. Certainly gay marriage, maybe abortion. Probably not gun control (thanks in part to the public, in part to the Supreme Court, the most heavily debated gun issue now is open carry, not the right to own).
Andrew, I disagree with your example of California passing a law to discriminate against christians, etc is even remotely the same. The law in Indiana and other states does not give permission or codify discrimination. It could be used as a justification for discrimination but that doesn't mean in a specific case a judge will accept it.
To use extreme examples, say you have a bible thumping man beat up a homosexual and was charged with assault. If he were to try to use a religious exemption it would immediately be thrown out. The primary issue at hand is how much can the state force people to do things they are not comfortable doing, in this case, due to religious convictions? Can a minister refuse to marry a homosexual couple due to his beliefs? I believe he is in that right. Can a doctor refuse to treat the same couple? Now it gets fuzzy. Personally, I think he has a right to refuse to treat them but it is his responsibility to find an adequate replacement.
There is a hospital group in Colorado owned by a Catholic group (Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth) who do not allow abortions or surgical birth control (ex. tubal ligation) in their hospitals. I believe this is their right. Should they be forced because birth control has become a public issue?
Finally, the discrimination you used as an example is already done. On the Southern Poverty Law center website I looked up Colorado. There are 15 hate groups. Four of them are churches. What is their crime? They disagree with gay marriage. Again, the left doesn't really care about thoughtful discussions or being inclusive. The only care that you think properly like they do. Disagreeing with someone is NOT hate speech but I could make the argument that accusing someone of being hateful could be hate speech.
"...Disagreeing with someone is NOT hate speech but I could make the argument that accusing someone of being hateful could be hate speech."
But that is point...you are being "hateful" if you disagree or even question. Not everyone, but many have just stopped listening. It's about winning, not about reasoned arguments that sway opinion. Even in the real political arena of D.C. it's about winner take all, not about compromise and certainly not about civility. Maybe it was all started with the "you are either with us or against us" GWB, but he still used the words "us" as in the US citizens. Now it's "us v. them" and the "them" is any fellow citizen who doesn't agree with you. I think that it has always had the potential with the echo chambers of the wingnuts, but now they have the megaphone.
Anthony, Not to be snarky, but in that case you might just as well say that Democrats and Republicans will be major players in the next election. Social issues are ever-present for two reasons: 1) The most effective way to promote or attack an agenda--be it economic, defense, infrastructure--is to frame it socially. 2) Social issues are a safe retreat when you have no agenda.
Koshcat, I'm not saying what if California passed a law discriminating against Christians... California can't do that anymore than Indiana can. What these laws are trying to do is to allow private people who provide commercial services to the public to refuse a right to offer their services to gays... basically to let individuals circumvent anti-discrimination laws.
And since that's all this really is, you could just as easily pass the same law (probably with the same language actually) to say that atheists, Muslims, gays or other people who find Christianity offensive to their beliefs have a right to refuse to provide services to Christians. If that happened, then you would hear a wild outcry from the right about discrimination and how this is illegal and how we can't allow this.
Koshcat, BTW, the real problem with all the attempts to give Christians special rights, something the right tries periodically under the guise of religious "freedom" laws, is that our Constitution doesn't allow you to single out Christianity. So when you set up those rights, everyone else can use them too... like Muslims and atheists and Wiccans and every other dipsh*t in the country.
One more point, by the way. These attempts always blow up on the people who try them. There are several ways this one can blow up. The most likely is that a federal court will use it as an excuse to decide that gays are a protected class in Indiana's circuit and Indiana will suddenly have a gay rights law.
That said, however, what Pence is doing may do that for them. If he does what he claims, which is to make it clear that you can't use this to discriminate against gays, then this will effectively become Indiana's gay rights law. Essentially, it will be the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve.
Bev, I think you're right. Everything is about pandering to the partisans these days and that means all or nothing. There is no attempt to actually create a better functioning or more happy, peaceful and prosperous society... it's about scoring points.... phantom points at that.
yes, Tryanmax, there are many SPLC "hate group" categories that are just "general hate" and most of them are religiously based. Though I can say that there were no obvious general hate groups that were defined as "Tea Party" related. So that goods ecause that must mean we can still speak out against our government and politicians and it isn't yet considered "hateful".
But I do think that the Southern Poverty Law Center should consider removing the "Southern" from its name considering that hate groups seem to be pretty much in every state except Alaska and Hawaii and not just "Southern". And nothing on their website seems to have any relation to "poverty" either. So maybe it should just be the Social Justice Law Center then they would only have to change one letter...
Bev, I've always viewed the SPLC as nothing more than a leftist smear group. I've never had any respect for them at all.
Speaking of hate, Azelia Banks is a piece of work. It's hilarious that in the same interview in which she stated people who viewed her as angry are racists, she talked about how much she hates whites.
I was familiar with her work before she became infamous and while she 's okay (the stuff I heard was standard party music, there was no talk about hating anyone) she's hardly one of the top talents.
Shame no Democrat was dumb enough to defend her.
One more point, by the way. These attempts always blow up on the people who try them.
I agree. No good deed goes unpunished at this controversy is a good example. My understanding of why these laws were enacted in the first place was to protect more minority religions. For example, Native Americans can keep eagle feathers and use peyote. Knowing how leftist flock to these things I suspect many who are marching against this law in Indiana where marching for the law during the Clinton administration. Hippocrisy is a mean bitch.
LGBTQ huh? Let's add some more...
Bronies
Furrys
Zooys
Selfies
Personally, I think they should rethink their acronym (LGBTQ) because it is obviously sexist as the L(esbian) is a patriarchal stab at letting the little woman go first and it goes from there in an even more obvious patriarchal pecking order.
Btw, the "Q" stands for "Questioning" just in case you need a "victimhood" issue for extra added street cred. I am not sure you actually have to engage in any act to be considered a "Q"...
Okay...I am making fun of people, so I will just cover my bases by ending with "I am sorry if you think what I wrote was offensive. It was a joke and anyway, I have lots of gay friends." [That should cover it, right?]
Bev, The proper form of apology is: "I am sorry if you choose to be offended by things I may or may not have been alleged to have said."
Koshcat, I can't believe there really are Bronies... but I guess there are. Blech!
My attitude toward Bronies is to each his own.
In fact, it is the same rule I have with every sub-culture. Leave the freaky stuff for the Cons, the Clubs, and Halloween.
Now I question all of those costumes I rented of cartoon characters...but to each his own. But...eeeeewwwww. Maybe we should have dry-cleaned them more often.
Post a Comment